Really?

Gardasil technology was copyrighted in 1995.

First phase of clinical trials were started in 1996 for Gardasil.

Hmm... 2007-1996 = 11 years.

11 years > 10 years.

The phase II of the vaccine testing were completed in 2001, as noticed in this article:
HPV vaccine testing

Phase III and final approvals took another 5 years before it hit the market.

So yeah, we DO know it's 10+ year side effects. To this date, they're very minimal.

The best thing is, though, that a competitor to Gardasil will be coming out sometime this year, most likely. More options are typically a good thing in medicine, so if Gardasil proves to have some side effects, there's always a chance the other one will not. And vice-versa.

You always agree with me GrayHam. You may be shy about admitting it, but you know you do.

I still love ya bro.

Hey, work on your math. We're only 30 days into 2007 so it's not really 11 years, it's barely 10.

Also couldn't help but notice you didn't address my other point. If you think this is all about women's health, you're terribly naive.

Umm, no, drug companies don't make drugs out of the kindness of their hearts. They're businesses, and they're out to make a $, same as the rest of us.

But I still don't see how that makes them wrong to put out a drug that has a great benefit...

Taking your logic to the extreme, and the only way a drug or vaccine could ever make it to market is if a company tested it for well over dozens of years, and gave it away for free.

I'm well aware that drug companies are in business to make money, and that's fine, it's free enterprise. You're either missing my point or ignoring it...I thought it was rather obviously stated but perhaps not.

It's not wrong for them to "put out a drug that has great benefit" and I never said that. It's wrong for it to be forced on the public by a politician who is aligned with the very people who will make huge profits off his actions. He's the one whose pretense is valiantly protecting young women when in reality he's helping his buddies make a buck. It's the very worst side of our political system at work.

As I said before, morally and ethically, he has no place in a decision-making process that will directly benefit people he's "in bed with."

I think you are missing some important aspects of this debate.

First of all..... Governor Perry is attempting to mandate these vaccinations via Executive Order. What he is doing is bypassing the entire legislative process. There will be no debate in the legislature. No committee hearings in which all sides can present the scientific facts and risks. No debate over the rights of parents.

Perry is seriously overstepping his authority with an Executive Order like this. In the absence of an epidemiological disaster, I don't see where he has the legal authority to issue such an order.

On the other issue.... The government will be forcing these vaccinations on young girls of 11 and 12 years old. Young girls whose reproductive systems are not mature and are barely even entering puberty. Do these scientists know what effect the introduction of this viral vaccine will have on a pre-pubescent female? Will there be any adverse effects on normal reproductive development?

I haven't seen any articles where there has been testing of this virus vaccine on pre-pubescent and developing females. As far as I have seen, the testing has been done on adult females.

All these questions need to be openly debated and evidence presented within the legislative process. This is not occurring. The reason why this process is not occurring also needs to be openly debated.

Governor Perry is completely wrong.

NYMadman expanded nicely on my point. If this is such a great idea, and based on keeping young women healthy, surely it would stand the test of open debate and deliberation.

Just for the record, Merck's efficacy testing of the vaccine took place in two groups of girls/women: 9-15 years old and 16-26 years old. The vaccine was in fact tested, by more than one group, in pre-pubescent and adolescent girls with no indications of problems. The vaccine is slightly more effective in younger girls.

Also remember, there is no virus as such in the vaccine. The viral proteins are prepared from microbial culture, so there's no cell culture, no DNA, RNA, inactivated or attenuated virus.

There is nothing I can add to this thread that others possibly smarter than I haven't already said. I will say that helpful or not, my main problem is how Perry did it, and how he does appear to be "on the take". Correct me if I am wrong, but how many states turned this down before Texas became the first to accept it? Thirteen or so? And of the Vaccine, what about all the males running around with genital warts (caused by HPV)? How about a vaccine for them so you can stop the spread of HPV, not just vaccinate the girls from it?

It's undergoing clinical testing for males, right now. They don't know if it'll work, just yet. But it is being tested to see.